The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Lane Violation & Foul (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/101709-lane-violation-foul.html)

The_Rookie Sat Oct 08, 2016 05:58pm
Lane Violation & Foul
 
A1 is shooting a free throw. B1 leaves her lane spot on the release to box out A1. The box out by B1 results in a foul called because B1 knocked A1 to the ground.

What is the correct way to handle a lane violation and a foul?

JRutledge Sat Oct 08, 2016 06:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rookie (Post 991577)
A1 is shooting a free throw. B1 leaves her lane spot on the release to box out A1. The box out by B1 results in a foul called because B1 knocked A1 to the ground.

What is the correct way to handle a lane violation and a foul?
Several factors we would need to know.

Are there FTs left in the sequence? If there are you have to shoot those at this point.

Did the FT on the foul go in the basket? If so then you would not shoot the FT again.

But the bottom line, you have to enforce each penalties in the order they occur. But all those other things matter to the enforcement of this penalty.

Peace

bob jenkins Sat Oct 08, 2016 09:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rookie (Post 991577)
A1 is shooting a free throw. B1 leaves her lane spot on the release to box out A1. The box out by B1 results in a foul called because B1 knocked A1 to the ground.

What is the correct way to handle a lane violation and a foul?
It's both a violation AND a foul. Penalize in the order they occurred -- violation THEN foul.

Camron Rust Sat Oct 08, 2016 11:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 991585)
It's both a violation AND a foul. Penalize in the order they occurred -- violation THEN foul.
And if the foul occurs while the FT shooter is in the act of shooting the FT how many shots do you award?

bob jenkins Sun Oct 09, 2016 08:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 991586)
And if the foul occurs while the FT shooter is in the act of shooting the FT how many shots do you award?
I think this is "not covered." So, as many as are called for in 2-3.

I'm calling it intentional -- two FTs and the ball. If it ever really happens, there is probably a T coming somewhere, too.

just another ref Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 991586)
And if the foul occurs while the FT shooter is in the act of shooting the FT how many shots do you award?
A foul against a player in the act of shooting a FT would still, by definition, be a common foul, would it not?

BigCat Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 991594)
A foul against a player in the act of shooting a FT would still, by definition, be a common foul, would it not?
If you call it intentional or flagrant it would not be a common foul. (It would be intentional or flagrant) Otherwise, yes. We have gone through this before and I think that was the answer.

crosscountry55 Sun Oct 09, 2016 11:08am
The OP says that B1 leaves on the release. It's important to note that this by itself is not a violation. We're assuming that B1 entered the FT semi-circle while she was still restricted from doing so, but this is not expressly stated.

So, this could be either a violation followed by a personal foul, or simply a personal foul.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Adam Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:00am
Technically, you could have a foul followed by the violation.

The odds of having a foul in the act of shooting are pretty slim if the defender leaves after the release.

JRutledge Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 991598)
The OP says that B1 leaves on the release. It's important to note that this by itself is not a violation. We're assuming that B1 entered the FT semi-circle while she was still restricted from doing so, but this is not expressly stated.

So, this could be either a violation followed by a personal foul, or simply a personal foul.
Yes that is true, but the rule did not change. So leaving your lane space on the release is not a violation and the rule was changed last year. I am going to assume that he knows this already. The only way this would be a violation is based on the new rule of entering the semi-circle, as this is what the new rule addresses.

And I do not know how you would have a foul on a FT shooter without causing a violation first. I guess if the FT shooter is leaning over the line maybe but not likely. Or if the FT restrictions have ended and then the FT shooter enters the lane and is then fouled. But that sounds like a for the purposes of the new rule application.

Peace

crosscountry55 Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 991631)
Yes that is true, but the rule did not change. So leaving your lane space on the release is not a violation and the rule was changed last year. I am going to assume that he knows this already. The only way this would be a violation is based on the new rule of entering the semi-circle, as this is what the new rule addresses.



And I do not know how you would have a foul on a FT shooter without causing a violation first. I guess if the FT shooter is leaning over the line maybe but not likely. Or if the FT restrictions have ended and then the FT shooter enters the lane and is then fouled. But that sounds like a for the purposes of the new rule application.



Peace

I assumed the same thing. Just clarifying for purposes of newer officials to whom this may not be so obvious.

In terms of a foul on a FT shooter without a violation first, I'm considering the situation where a player in a marked lane space positions himself in front of the FT shooter, and then backs them down after the ball hits the rim. Or something like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Adam Mon Oct 10, 2016 02:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 991631)
Yes that is true, but the rule did not change. So leaving your lane space on the release is not a violation and the rule was changed last year. I am going to assume that he knows this already. The only way this would be a violation is based on the new rule of entering the semi-circle, as this is what the new rule addresses.

And I do not know how you would have a foul on a FT shooter without causing a violation first. I guess if the FT shooter is leaning over the line maybe but not likely. Or if the FT restrictions have ended and then the FT shooter enters the lane and is then fouled. But that sounds like a for the purposes of the new rule application.

Peace
I'm not looking at the rule, but with other lane violations, breaking the plane with anything but the foot is not a violation, so it would be possible for a foul to occur without a lane violation. Not common, but possible.

The_Rookie Mon Oct 10, 2016 02:51pm
Yes..Entering FT semi-circle is what I meant:)

The_Rookie Mon Oct 10, 2016 02:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 991646)
I'm not looking at the rule, but with other lane violations, breaking the plane with anything but the foot is not a violation, so it would be possible for a foul to occur without a lane violation. Not common, but possible.
What about the hand breaking the plane and touches floor..Lane Violation?

bob jenkins Mon Oct 10, 2016 03:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rookie (Post 991648)
What about the hand breaking the plane and touches floor..Lane Violation?
Yes -- but that's NOT what Adam said. You added an additional condition.

The_Rookie Mon Oct 10, 2016 03:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 991649)
Yes -- but that's NOT what Adam said. You added an additional condition.
DA Floor DA Floor:rolleyes:

JRutledge Mon Oct 10, 2016 05:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 991646)
I'm not looking at the rule, but with other lane violations, breaking the plane with anything but the foot is not a violation, so it would be possible for a foul to occur without a lane violation. Not common, but possible.
Does it say only feet? I am not seeing that in the rule. Now I agree that likely that would be the best way to call the violations, but I could see someone using their bent over body to break the plane and not touch with their feet first.

Peace

Adam Mon Oct 10, 2016 06:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 991653)
Does it say only feet? I am not seeing that in the rule. Now I agree that likely that would be the best way to call the violations, but I could see someone using their bent over body to break the plane and not touch with their feet first.

Peace
I'd have to see how the rule is written, but for players along the lane lines (and the FT shooter, if I remember correctly), it's feet over or contact with the floor. Hands and hips across plane don't violate the rule.

JRutledge Mon Oct 10, 2016 06:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 991655)
I'd have to see how the rule is written, but for players along the lane lines (and the FT shooter, if I remember correctly), it's feet over or contact with the floor. Hands and hips across plane don't violate the rule.
I thought the interpretation was breaking the plane not necessarily with your feet , but we might need a clarification.

Peace

BigCat Mon Oct 10, 2016 07:11pm
Feet cannot break the plane of any lane boundary. Other parts cannot touch floor.

deecee Mon Oct 10, 2016 08:23pm
I'm glad that something that so rarely happens is getting so much attention. Most officials should focus on getting whats obvious right and being consistent and that will improve their games way more than focusing on this once in a decade occurrences (which most likely are during off season AAU or freshman games).

Freddy Tue Oct 11, 2016 03:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee (Post 991659)
I'm glad that something that so rarely happens is getting so much attention. Most officials should focus on getting whats obvious right and being consistent and that will improve their games way more than focusing on this once in a decade occurrences (which most likely are during off season AAU or freshman games).
The great thing about it is the due attention to proper free throw positioning of C (and 2-man T) and apt observance during the FT. For many for far too long free throw time has become "time off" and this rule change seems to be bringing things in a good direction.

Especially if called if/when it happens, the violation will become rare. Before the rule and cautionary preventative officiating regarding it, it was not uncommon around here. From dozens of clips from previous years:

Displacement of FTer 1
Early Entry and FT Line Violation
Displacement of FTer 2

BillyMac Tue Oct 11, 2016 06:21am
Release ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 991657)
I thought the interpretation was breaking the plane not necessarily with your feet , but we might need a clarification.
For "regular" free throw violations, it is, indeed, the feet and the boundary plane (as well as the touch in the lane, which was added a few years ago as a casebook play). Since the switch to the "release", the violation for crossing the free throw line by a "rebounder" has never been clarified by the NFHS.

crosscountry55 Tue Oct 11, 2016 07:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 991664)
For "regular" free throw violations, it is, indeed, the feet and the boundary plane (as well as the touch in the lane, which was added a few years ago as a casebook play). Since the switch to the "release", the violation for crossing the free throw line by a "rebounder" has never been clarified by the NFHS.

With that in mind, everyone take a look at Freddy's third video. I don't think the defender's feet cross the free-throw line before the restrictions end, but her butt sure does, and there IS a foul there (not disputing that). So....is there also a delayed violation here? I agree with Billy; the new rule is not clear and may need a little editing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Freddy Tue Oct 11, 2016 07:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 991665)
With that in mind, everyone take a look at Freddy's third video. I don't think the defender's feet cross the free-throw line before the restrictions end, but her butt sure does, and there IS a foul there (not disputing that). So....is there also a delayed violation here? I agree with Billy; the new rule is not clear and may need a little editing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BTW, these and the other dozen or so video clips I have of this violation and subsequent follow-up foul were from 2 years ago. Because this "new" rule was already in force last year by the POE, and our guys around here did a pretty good job of policing it, I could find not one similar situation of all the video that I reviewed from last year. So as I say it should disappear. Plus a lot of the occurrences are so close that they don't merit a violation, however preventive officiating takes care of it after that.

Adam Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee (Post 991659)
I'm glad that something that so rarely happens is getting so much attention. Most officials should focus on getting whats obvious right and being consistent and that will improve their games way more than focusing on this once in a decade occurrences (which most likely are during off season AAU or freshman games).
Changes always get extra attention for a couple of years. If you don't like it, you're free to read other posts.

deecee Tue Oct 11, 2016 06:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 991662)
The great thing about it is the due attention to proper free throw positioning of C (and 2-man T) and apt observance during the FT. For many for far too long free throw time has become "time off" and this rule change seems to be bringing things in a good direction.

Especially if called if/when it happens, the violation will become rare. Before the rule and cautionary preventative officiating regarding it, it was not uncommon around here. From dozens of clips from previous years:

Displacement of FTer 1
Early Entry and FT Line Violation
Displacement of FTer 2
#2 is the only foul I see. #3 just looks ugly and it's what I would expect from a girls game.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:39am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1